Koseoglu,

C/e: xxS., &C/e

Bozkurt,
QA: xx A. (2019). An exploratory literature review on open educational practices. Distance Education.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520042

DISTANCE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520042

ARTICLE

An exploratory literature review on open educational practices

a b,c
Suzan Koseoglu and Aras Bozkurt
a
Teaching and Learning Innovation Centre, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK; bDistance
Education Department, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey; cDepartment of English Studies, University of 5
South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

N
This paper presents a review of peer-reviewed publications (2007– Received 17 May 2018
2017) on digital open educational practices (OEPs). It explores Accepted 2 September 2018

O
trends and patterns in this emerging area of study by examining KEYWORDS
10
paper abstracts and bibliographic data indexed in the Scopus Open education; open
database using a combination of descriptive statistics, text mining, educational practice;

SI
social network analysis, and content analysis. Findings demon- openness; literature review;
strated two major strands of OEP research: those who discuss mixed methods
OEP in the context of open educational resources, mostly in 15

R
terms of open educational resource creation, adoption and use,
and those who discuss OEP in relation to other areas, including
VE
open scholarship, open learning, open teaching or pedagogy,
open systems and architectures, and open source software.
Based on the findings of this study and in the light of the broader 20
literature on OEPs, we echo the calls for a need to conceptualize
OEPs as a multidimensional and unifying construct.
T
IN

Introduction
There has been growing interest in digital open educational practices (OEPs) in recent
R

years. Multiple reasons for this interest can be drawn from the recent literature on 25
massive open online courses (MOOCs), open educational resources (OER), and open and
EP

networked scholarship. First, it has been argued that although access to resources and
content is only part of the educational experience (Cormier & Siemens, 2010), there is “a
tendency to view access to online material as the principal concern of the open
PR

education movement” (Knox, 2013, p. 21). Knox argued that there is a need to focus 30
on “open processes” instead, which he framed as the “active engagement of learners in
participation and dialogue, as well as further critical explorations of the relationships
between technology and education” (p. 21).
A number of scholars have also argued for a need to focus on educational practice to
improve engagement with OER (see Andrade et al., 2011; Alevizou, 2012; Atenas & 35
Havemann, 2014; Ehlers, 2011a; Geser, 2007), as access alone is not a “sufficient condi-
tion” for successful OER use and adoption (Ehlers, 2011a, p. 1). A report by the Open
Educational Quality (OPAL; Andrade et al., 2011) showed that issues with (1) “lack of
institutional support,” (2) “lack of technological tools,” (3) “lack of skills and time of

CONTACT Suzan Koseoglu s.koseoglu@gold.ac.uk Teaching and Learning Innovation Centre, Goldsmiths,
University of London, 15 Laurie Grove, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, UK
© 2018 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.
2 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

users;” (4) “lack of quality or fitness of OER,” and (5) “personal issues (lack of trust and 40
time)” were significant barriers for engagement with OER (p. 8). It is evident that a better
understanding of open processes is needed to improve learner engagement with open
resources (Andrade et al., 2011; Ehlers, 2011a; Walz & Bekbalaeva, 2018) and to address
issues with “policy development, rais[ing] awareness and capacity building” (Bossu &
Stagg, 2018, p. 154). 45
Finally, there has been an increased awareness and understanding of different forms
and dimension of openness and open practice (e.g., Beetham, Falconer, McGill, &
Littlejohn, 2012; Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014; Naidu, 2016). Cronin (2017), as we will
discuss further in the following section, proposed that OEPs is a broad concept that
includes open and networked scholarship, which is also noted by Beetham et al. (2012), 50
Naidu (2016), and Mishra (2017). Surprisingly, there is limited research on OEPs in the

N
educational literature, particularly from this “expansive” perspective (Cronin & MacLaren,

O
2018, p.127). We conducted a literature review on trends and patterns on OEPs to
contribute to this area of study. This study is significant as it is the first that provides
55

SI
an exploratory analysis of peer-reviewed OEP literature across different disciplines and
can be used as a reference study for future research.
Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods, we
addressed the following research questions:

R
VE
● What are the trends and patterns in publications on OEPs?
● What patterns and meanings can be derived from a lexical and content analysis of 60
paper abstracts?
T

Background
IN

The earliest definition of OEPs (Cronin & MacLaren, 2018) goes back to the OLCOS
project (Geser, 2007). In the project report, OEPs were framed as educational practices
R

that “involve students in active, constructive engagement with content, tools and 65
services in the learning process, and promote learners’ self-management, creativity
EP

and working in teams” (Geser, 2007, p. 37). Furthermore, it was argued that OEPs
“emphasise learners’ own activities in developing competences, knowledge and skills”
(p. 124). Similar with the OLCOS project, the collaborative OPAL initiative (Andrade et al.,
PR

2011) aligned OEPs with learner-centered and innovative teaching practices, yet in close 70
connection with OER: “OEP are defined as practices which support the (re)use and
production of OER through institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogical mod-
els, and respect and empower learners as co-producers on their lifelong learning path”
(Andrade et al., 2011, p. 12).
Building on his work as part of the OPAL initiative, Ehlers (2011a) argued that the OER 75
movement needed to move away from its heavy focus on access to process to address
issues with quality and sustainability. Sustainability in particular meant that there ought
to be a “culture of openness within institutions” (p. 2) nurtured by social and technical
support. It also meant that the processes and products of open education had value for
both teaching staff and learners. This was possible by transforming OER into something 80
that is an actual part of the learning process. However, Ehlers (2011a) avoided
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 3

positioning openness as an ultimate goal; rather, he drew attention to the diversity of

educational practice within institutions:

We believe that educational practices are never entirely closed or open and that, within
educational organisations, patterns and configurations of educational practices exist which, 85
taken together, constitute a diverse landscape. (p. 6)

The challenge now, Ehlers (2011a) noted, was to use “OER to improve learning
experiences and innovate educational scenarios” (p. 3), while taking the teaching
method and structure into consideration. Thus, as noted on the OER Commons
website (https://www.oercommons.org/about), “The move to open education practice 90
(OEP) is more than a shift in content, it is an immersive experience in collaborative
teaching and learning.” The OPAL report (Andrade et al., 2011) asserted that the

N
move towards OEP signalled a shift to a second phase in the open education move-
ment, which is about “[improving] the learning experience and innovate educational

O
scenarios” (Ehlers, 2011a, p. 3). The report characterized phase 2 as follows: “builds on 95
OER; goes beyond access into open learning architectures, focus [is] learning as

SI
construction [and] sharing, quality improvement through external validation, change
of educational cultures, and OER as value proposition for Institutions” (Andrade et al.,

R
2011, p. 12).
Mays (2017), in a multi-year project that “sought to understand how OER might be 100
VE
used as a catalyst for pedagogical transformation in African universities” (p. 387), argued
that for meaningful student and staff engagement with OER, the “institutional vision,
mission and values” (p. 396) should drive the creation and adaptation of learning
resources. Considering the increasing demand on flexible learning opportunities and
T

building on Downes (2007) and Ehlers (2011a), Mays (2017) argued that a working 105
solution for institutions would be to make open and distance learning (ODL) a central
IN

business model and situate engagement with OER within an open ecology model. Mays
argued that there is a need to address issues with openness at three levels: “at the micro
R

level of individual learning resources, through to the meso level of open methods of
teaching and learning, through to the macro-institutional level of an open educational 110
EP

practices culture” (p. 394). Furthermore, Mays noted that any discussion on resource
should involve decisions about “what should be taught, how and when; how and when
learning should be assessed; and how the curriculum should be resourced and sup-
ported” (p. 388).
PR

The perspectives discussed above are significant in that they promote innovation in 115
open education at multiple levels, including pedagogical (related to teaching methods
and curriculum design) and institutional (related to organizational frameworks and
policies) levels. They also remind us that there is a need to focus on the interaction
between resources, pedagogy, learning architectures, culture, and available support
mechanisms to improve the learning experience. Yet, it is important to further expand 120
on the forms of open practice aided by digital technology in this discussion, because as
the Cape Town Open Education Declaration (2007) states:

Open education is not limited to just open educational resources. It also draws upon
open technologies that facilitate collaborative, flexible learning and the open sharing of
teaching practices that empower educators to benefit from the best ideas of their 125
colleagues. (p. 4)
4 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

Although OEPs are not stated specifically in the declaration, the view is that there are
many open practices that go beyond sharing an educational resource – practices that
are facilitated by digital technologies.
Beetham et al. (2012) noted that using open and public pedagogy, open learning, 130
practising open scholarship, open sharing of teaching practice, and use of open
technologies were all examples for OEPs along with OER production, management,
use and reuse. In line with this broad framing of OEP, Cronin (2017) defined OEPs as
“collaborative practices that include the creation, use, and reuse of OER, as well as
pedagogical practices employing participatory technologies and social networks for 135
interaction, peer-learning, knowledge creation, and empowerment of learners” (p. 18).
From this perspective, engaging with a learning network on Twitter, contributing to a
class wiki, or writing and sharing an educational blog post can all be open practice.

N
Similarly, Havemann (2016) also noted that “OEP consist not only of creating and
140

O
reusing OER, but also of other forms of transparency around academic practice, such
as blogging, tweeting, presenting, and debating scholarly and pedagogic activities, in

SI
ways that promote reflection, reusability, revision, and collaboration.” Cronin and
MacLaren (2018, p. 127) later referred to such broad conceptualizations of OEPs as
“expansive” definitions of OEP, noting that OEP might be “inclusive of but not
necessarily focused on OER.”

R
Next, we present and discuss findings from an exploratory literature review on OEPs
145
VE
to shed light on existing trends and patterns in the OEP literature from an expansive
perspective. Parts of the literature presented here arerevisited later, in the Conclusion
and implications section.
T

Methodology 150
IN

Research method and design

R

For the purposes of the study, we used a systematic review approach (Gough, Oliver, &
Thomas, 2012). As part of the review, social network analysis (SNA) (Hansen,
EP

Shneiderman, & Smith, 2010), content analysis (Given, 2008), and text mining (Hearst,
2003) approaches were used. The main reason for analyzing and interpreting data 155
through these approaches was to triangulate the data to gain a multidimensional
perspective (Foster, 1997) and increase the validity of the research. The overall research
PR

design is illustrated in Figure 1.

Sampling
We used the Scopus database for sampling. The initial criteria for inclusion in the 160
research are as follows: indexed in Scopus, has the search term open educational
practice(s) in the title, abstract, or keywords, is written in English or has an abstract in
English. We reached 58 papers in the initial screening. We then read all the paper
abstracts, and full texts where needed, to identify the papers relevant to our research
context and to remove any duplicate resources. Five publications were excluded from 165
the research corpus at the end of this final screening. The final research corpus was
composed of 53 papers published between 2007 and 2017.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 5

N
O
Figure 1. Overall research design.

SI
R
Data collection and analysis
This research benefits from multiple approaches to data collection and analysis, as
VE
described below. 170

Round 1
First, we analyzed bibliographic data in sampled publications to identify existing research
T

trends (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) using the data provided by Scopus. We created descriptive
tables showing time series, subject area, source type, source title, countrywide distribution,
IN

institutional affiliations, and keywords. In addition, we noted the research methods used in 175
the papers and created a descriptive table to present research trends.
R

Round 2
EP

Second, we used SNA, which is a novel technique for analyzing network structures
through multiple levels (Hansen et al., 2010). In this round, keywords were analyzed
according to their co-occurrence and then visualized using the Harel-Koren fast layout 180
algorithm (Harel & Koren, 2000). The significance of the keywords was determined
PR

according to their betweenness centrality (BC) metrics (Newman, 2005).

Round 3
Third, text mining, which is an approach used to explore invisible patterns in a set of textual
data (Hearst, 2003), was used to create a thematic concept map of paper abstracts and 185
titles. In this research, Leximancer, which extracts and displays visual and statistical infor-
mation through linguistic and lexical analysis of co-occurring data (Crofts & Bisman, 2010;
Smith & Humphreys, 2006), was used to identify and explore textual paths.

Round 4
In this section, in line with the conventions of qualitative data analysis, we report how 190
we interpreted qualitative data in connection with the method used. In this round, we
6 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

did a close reading (Given, 2008) of paper abstracts to better understand findings from
the SNA and lexical analysis in context. We first noted areas of interest arising from SNA
and lexical analysis. We then asked: What does [X finding from SNA or lexical analysis]
mean? How can we better understand the relationships shown by quantified data? This 195
process was transparent (researchers worked together on a collaborative online docu-
ment) and discursive. We noted comments and created codes to help us make sense of
and interpret textual data within and across studies. One example for this process is the
finding that the keywords OEP and OER have the strongest BC metrics. In order to
understand the context of the relationship between OER and OEP, we read all the paper 200
abstracts and noted themes, as reported in the Text mining (lexical analysis) and content
analysis section.

N
Limitations

O
The database used for this study has limitations that must be acknowledged. First,

SI
Scopus indexes publications written in English only (in abstracts or full text). Second, 205
unlike other databases it includes only peer-reviewed materials such as book chapters,
conference proceedings and journal articles. This means the literature published and

R
shared via other means, such as blogs, reports, and white papers, is not included in the
database. We included such publications in the Background section of this paper and in
VE
the discussion of findings; however, readers should bear in mind that they are not part 210
of the study sample because they were not peer reviewed.
T

Findings and discussion

IN

Quantitative content analysis

Time series
The first paper with a reference to digital OEPs was published in 2007 (n = 1), and peak 215
R

publication points were reached in 2014 (n = 8), 2015 (n = 9), 2016 (n = 9) and 2017
EP

(n = 8) with minor fluctuations, which suggests a slow but steady increase in papers
related to OEPs (Figure 2). The biggest increase in publications was in 2012, which
corresponds with a growing interest in OEPs in 2011, marked by the OPAL report
(Andrade et al., 2011) and related studies (e.g., Camilleri & Ehlers, 2011; Ehlers, 2011a). 220
PR

Subject area
Content analysis of resources shows that social sciences lead the research on OEPs
(55.2%; includes education as a sub-field of study) followed by computer science (29.9%)
(Figure 3). Other notable subject areas that published on OEPs are engineering (8.0%),
arts and humanities (4.6%), and mathematics (2.3%). This shows that the study of OEPs is 225
multidisciplinary, but research is not distributed evenly among disciplines.

Source type
The source type for publications shows that traditional journal articles constitute the
majority of publications (66%), followed by conference proceedings (20.8%), book
chapters (5.7%), and reviews (5.7%) (Figure 4). 230
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 7

Figure 2. Time series of sampled papers (n = 53).

N
O
SI
Figure 3. Subject areas of sampled publications.
R
VE
T
IN

Figure 4. Source types of sampled publications.

R

It was interesting to see that although the study of digital OEPs is quite new – the
EP

OLCOS project in 2007 (Geser, 2007) marks the beginning of it – there were more journal
articles than conference papers in our sample. But on closer inspection, especially when
we started the content analysis of paper abstracts, we observed that the majority of
PR

articles discuss OEPs in connection with OER, which is a more established field of study 235
than open practice or OEP (Weller, Jordan, DeVries, & Rolfe, 2018).

Source title
Of the 36 journals in our data set, RUSC Universities and Knowledge Society Journal (title
changed to International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education in 2016)
was the leading journal publishing papers related to digital OEPs (n = 6; 11.3%) and the 240
only journal available in two languages (Spanish and English). Distance Education (7.5%),
the International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning (7.5%), and the
Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (7.5%) published 4 papers each. This was
followed by the Electronic Journal of e-Learning (5.7%) and Research in Learning
8 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

Technology (n = 2; 5.7%). Other journals with lower frequencies constituted 50.9% of our 245
sample (Figure 5).
It is interesting to note that all of the journals noted above, except Distance Education
and the Electronic Journal of e-Learning, are open access journals. We also would like to
note that although OEP publications in our sample are disseminated and promoted
predominantly in the Global North, some of the top contributors are from the Global 250
South, as shown below in Figure 6.

Countrywide distribution and institutional affiliation

When institutional affiliations with a minimum occurrence of three are examined
(Figure 6), we observe the following trend: scholars in the Open University (United
Kingdom; n = 6) and the University of Southern Queensland (Australia; n = 5) take the 255

N
lead, followed by University of La Sabana (Colombia; n = 5), the University of Tasmania

O
(Australia; n = 4), the Technical University of Madrid (Spain; n = 3), and Universidad
Tecnica Particular de Loja (Ecuador; n = 3). As the countrywide distribution also shows,

SI
institutions in the UK are the major contributors to OEP research; however, the differ-
ence in numbers between the top 12 institutions taking the lead is minor. 260
Similar to the trend in institutional affiliations, which solely shows institutional con-

R
tribution at a meso level, the countrywide distribution shows the overall contribution
from countries at a macro level. The countrywide distribution graph illustrates that the
VE
T
IN
R
EP

Figure 5. Source titles of sampled publications, their locations and access policies.
PR

Figure 6. Institutional affiliations within sampled publications.

 DISTANCE EDUCATION 9

UK is the leading contributor (n = 1 7), followed closely by Australia (n = 10), and then
Spain (n = 6) and Colombia (n = 5) (Figure 7). It is also noteworthy that there is a 265
dominance of countries, which have been the leading contributors to the openness
movement in education and the prime mover of open universities in this figure, such as
the UK, Australia and Spain (Peters, 2008). It is interesting to note in these graphs
(Figures 6 and 7) the limited reference to OEPs in publications from the United States
and Canada despite the growing interest in open textbooks and open pedagogy (Cronin 270
& MacLaren, 2018). This might indicate that, as a descriptor, open educational practice is
not as widely adopted in North America as in the UK or Australia or Colombia.
The trends in institutional and countrywide distributions can be further explained
with Roger’s (2003) diffusion of innovations theory. Based on this model, individuals at a
micro level, institutions at a meso level and countries at a macro level can be referred to 275

N
as innovators, early adopters or early majority in this emerging area of research. The next

O
stage of the study of OEP could be the implementation and confirmation stage, depend-
ing on the extent it is rejected as a research paradigm or adopted overall. As such,

SI
strategic decisions and policies on OEPs are important at this preliminary stage.

Research methods used

R 280
VE
Conceptual and descriptive papers constitute the majority of our sample. Literature
review was the most common method used in this category (n = 15) (book chapters
and journal articles that provide an overview of topic or topics related to OEPs are also
included in this category). Qualitative methods were most preferred, in particular
through the use of case studies (n = 11). These were followed by reports (n = 4) and 285
T

surveys (n = 3). Data mining and analytics were the least used methods (n = 1). The full
IN

list of the research methods used in the study sample is provided in Table A1.
R
EP
PR

Figure 7. Countrywide distribution of sampled publications.

10 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

Keyword network analysis

To better understand the keyword patterns, all keywords (n = 130) were imported to
NodeXL (SNA software). Keywords were laid out using the Harel-Koren fast multiscale 290
layout algorithm (Harel & Koren, 2000) and their positions were defined by using the BC
metric, which in this study refers to each keyword’s ability to bridge one another.
Keyword co-occurrences were interpreted as relationships (Figure 8). The full list of
keyword BC metrics are provided in Table A3. The frequency of use is reported in
Table A2. 295
The top 10 keywords with the highest BC values in order were: OERs (BC: 8516.8),
OEPs (BC: 3953.4), collaboration (BC: 1237.8), higher education (BC: 378.4), MOOCs (BC:
98.8), educational technology (BC: 86.2), university (BC: 65.1), community of practice (BC:

N
59.7), Web 2.0 (BC: 58.4), and open education (BC: 66.6). Some of the findings are
discussed in context below. 300

O
SI
Text mining (lexical analysis) and qualitative content analysis
This section provides findings derived from a lexical analysis (Figure 9) of paper abstracts

R
and titles and is discussed in context through a close reading of paper abstracts, and full
texts where needed. We highlight three paths that emerged from the lexical analysis below.
VE
Connection between OER and OEP (path: OER – OEP) 305
The close connection between OER and OEP firmly emerged in this study through
multiple data analysis methods. This is not surprising as this connection is also widely
T
IN
R
EP
PR

Figure 8. Keyword network analysis of sampled keywords.

 DISTANCE EDUCATION 11

N
O
SI
R
VE
T
IN
R
EP

Figure 9. Thematic concept map derived from a lexical analysis of paper abstracts and titles.
PR

documented in the literature on OEPs (see Ehlers, 2011a; Karunanayaka, Naidu, Rajendra,
& Ratnayake, 2015). In a citation network analysis, Weller et al. (2018) observed that the
study of open practice stands “at the intersection of social media, open access publish- 310
ing and OER” (p. 117). In our sample, OER had the most weight in the lexical analysis of
paper titles and abstracts (Figure 9) and also in the SNA analysis (Figure 8).
A close reading of paper abstracts and full texts showed that the majority of research
papers discussed OEP in the context of OER, mostly in terms of OER adoption, creation
and use. However, OEP was also examined in relation to other areas including open 315
assessment of learning, open learning, open teaching/pedagogy, MOOCs, open source
software, open educational resource university (OERu), open systems and architectures
(including repositories of OER), and open source software. One interesting area of study
was “a particular open educational practice: the open production of educational
12 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

content,” which focused on “the open experience of producing a digital educational 320
material” (Laverde & Arias, 2015, p. 312). Except for two papers, these studies mentioned
OER in full texts; however, their focus was not solely on issues around open access to
resources. We also observed that OER were often discussed in close connection with
multiple dimensions of open practice. For example, Czerniewicz, Deacon, Glover, and
Walji (2017) “focused on the relationship between OER, MOOC design and the develop- 325
ment of open practices” (p. 95). In another study on open teaching, Chiappe and Lee
(2017) noted that “the most common means to implement Open Teaching as an ICT-
based practice are derived from the use of OER and via Massive Open Online Courses”
(p. 369). Findings confirm Cronin and MacLaren (2018, p. 127), who argued that OEP
might be “inclusive of but not necessarily focused on OER.” It is also interesting to note 330
that there were no references to OpenCourseWare OCW in our sample.

N
Barriers to overcome (path: OEP – OER – challenges)

O
A focus on OEP to address challenges in opening up education emerged as a strong

SI
theme in the analysis. Most barriers mentioned in paper abstracts were related to OER
adoption and use in adult professional development and higher education settings. One 335
paper presented a unique challenge: ethical issues in curating and disseminating tradi-
tional knowledge (Funk, Guthadjaka, & Kong, 2015).

R
This theme is in line with earlier studies that argue that access alone does not lead to
VE
successful use and adoption of OER. We mentioned in the Background section a report
that showed that issues with institutional support, limited or lack of resources (both 340
human and non-human) and quality were significant barriers for engagement with OER
(Andrade et al., 2011). Similarly, a report by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
T

highlighted that sustainability, curation and preservation of access, object granularity

and format diversity, intellectual property issues, content quality assessment and
IN

enhancement, computing and communication infrastructure, and scale-up and deepen- 345
ing impact in developing countries are barriers to overcome for use and adoption of OER
R

(Atkins, Brown, & Hammond, 2007). It is interesting to note that studies in our sample
identified more social factors that might increase engagement with OER and open
EP

teaching and learning, such as “sharing for the benefit of others and collective colla-
boration with other peers,” and “authentic learning in groups” (Nerantzi & Gossman, 350
2015, p. 2), “greater flexibility and a focus on the process of collaborative learning”
(Stylianakis, Moumoutzis, Arapi, Mylonakis, & Christodoulakis, 2014, p. 252), and “creat-
PR

ing a sense of community, visibility and communication in social networks” (Laverde &
Arias, 2015, p. 313). Collaboration and learning in communities of practice were also
prominent themes in the SNA. 355

Open practices as professional growth (path: education – learning – open – development

– professional)
As we noted above, two keywords with high BC values in the SNA were higher education
and university. Content analysis showed that OEP was discussed predominantly in the
context of adult professional development and teacher education. Some examples from 360
our sample are Kaatrakoski, Littlejohn, and Hood (2017), who discussed “OER [use] and
adoption of education practice” as a way for “challeng[ing] educators to change their
practice” (p. 599); Challinor, Marín, and Tur (2017), who discussed “the use of digital
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 13

storytelling to support the development of reflection and digital skills in professional

education” (p. 186), and Gallardo, Heiser, and Arias McLaughlin (2017), who examined 365
“[higher education] teachers’ engagement with collaborative and open educational
practices to develop their pedagogical expertise” (p. 518).
This is a desirable finding, as Ehlers (2011b) notes that, for sustainable open practices,
“an educational professional or learner [should embrace] their role as open educational
practitioners” (p. 6). Open practices are about capacity building (Bossu & Stagg, 2018), 370
and ignoring this factor can restrain the adoption of OEPs (Bossu, Brown, & Bull, 2014),
and thus it is very critical for the future of OEPs (Karunanayaka, Naidu, Rajendra, &
Ariadurai, 2018).

N
Conclusion and implications

O
We analyzed a decade of research (2007–2017) that referenced OEPs in their title, 375
abstract and/or keywords. Through a combination of descriptive statistics, SNA, text

SI
mining, and content analysis of paper abstracts, we identified trends and patterns in
sampled publications. Findings revealed that there is an increasing trend in the number

R
of peer-reviewed publications, which is likely to continue in the near future with a
growing awareness of the importance of open processes, which might include the 380
VE
experience of learning and teaching with OERs, in open courses, networks, and plat-
forms, and with open source technologies. Although a majority of publications in our
sample examined OEPs in relation to OER, particularly as a means to overcome barriers
in the use and adoption of open resources, we observed that the field is rich in scope
and multidisciplinary. Open scholarship, open teaching (including teaching in MOOCs), 385
T

open assessment of learning, engagement with open online problem-based learning

IN

tasks, using open source software, the design of open platforms and architectures were
some areas of OEP research in our study. We also observed that different dimensions of
open practice were often times discussed together because of their interrelated nature
R

(e.g., designing an open access resource as part of teaching an open online course). One 390
striking finding was that studies that looked at barriers in OEPs highlighted social factors
EP

that might increase engagement with OER and with open teaching and learning.
PR

Theoretical implications
We would like to draw attention to one editorial in our sample which discussed OEP in
the context of openness in education. In this editorial, Naidu (2016) noted: 395

OEP comprises a lot more than free and open access to educational resources, and that it
would be useful to see open educational practice as an omnibus term covering many
dimensions of openness, namely: open access, open scholarship, open learning. (p. 1)

This was indeed what we observed in this research; that is, although historically OEP
emerged from the study of OER, it is now a multidimensional construct with fuzzy 400
boundaries. As Naidu (2016) suggests, open educational practice is a useful umbrella
term to bring all the different dimensions of openness in education under one roof, with
a focus on the processes of education.
14 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

How can we, then, conceptualize the relationship between open education, OER and
OEPs? Figure 10 illustrates our response to this question based on findings and in the 405
light of the broader educational discourse on OEPs.
We have found Mays (2017) open ecology model helpful in describing how OEP can
be conceptualized in relation to the philosophies of openness and movements and
initiatives in open education. Mays discussed open ecology in the context of OER use in
African universities, as explained in the Background section of this paper. In our study, 410
we examine OEP in a different context, as an interdisciplinary research paradigm. We
also refrain from focusing on a particular educational approach or pedagogical model
(e.g., OER). Instead, we aim to capture the rich scope of OEP as evidenced in this study,
and its relationship to bigger movements and visions and ideals.
In the framework in Figure 10, the inner circle represents the core values and visions 415

N
that drive open education initiatives and movements. Although the general view is that

O
openness should embrace diversity, inclusivity, transparency and open sharing of edu-
cational practice, it is important to note that openness is a pluralistic concept as there

SI
are, and will be, many visions and values that shape open practices, intentionally or
unintentionally. It is beyond the scope of this paper to set a shared vision for openness 420
across different disciplines and practices; however, our view is that a social justice

R
orientation to openness is much needed to engage in and develop approaches that
are ethical and have transformative power.
VE
T
IN
R
EP
PR

Figure 10. A framework for OEP. In addition to the dimensions noted by Hodgkinson-Williams and
Gray (2009) and Hodgkinson-Williams (2014), labor (the production process) is added to the frame-
work as an important research dimension to consider in many open practices.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 15

The next circle, open education, refers to formal and informal educational oppor-
tunities and initiatives that are built upon the ideals of openness. The open educa- 425
tional practices circle emphasizes the focus on the process as opposed to product or
outcome in education. Here, we define OEP ideally as a broad range of practices that
are informed by open education initiatives and movements and that embody the
values and visions of openness. In line with Cronin and MacLaren’s (2018, p. 127)
argument on “expansive definitions of OEP,” this framework allows for “multiple 430
entry points to, and avenues of, openness” through the use of OEP, which might
include, but are not limited to, the creation, use, and adoption of OER, open scholar-
ship, open teaching, open assessments and using open source software. These
practices are represented in the outer layer of the framework: evolving-adaptive
approaches. Each approach could be further examined along the dimensions of 435

N
culture, pedagogy, technology, legal issues, finance (Hodgkinson-Williams, 2014;

O
Hodgkinson-Williams & Gray, 2009) and labor (the production process), which
might include practices that are not entirely open. Hodgkinson-Williams (2014, p.

SI
9) presents the dimensions of culture, pedagogy, technology, legal issues, and
finance as “factors that might influence the ‘degrees of ease’ with which various 440
‘open’ materials and/or processes can be adopted;” however, these dimensions, and

R
in addition the dimension of labor, show the complexity in openness and are useful
concepts to consider in the analysis and development of any open practice.
VE
As a complex ecological system, the model in Figure 10 is adaptive and flexible; that
is, it is subject to evolution. Some open approaches may disappear when they complete 445
their cycles, and similarly, new concepts may appear as the ecology needs them to
sustain its existence. We also note that, although the concepts in Figure 10 are illu-
T

strated in separate circles, all of them can connect and intersect with one another in
many ways.
IN

Notes on pedagogy 450

R

We see OEP as a process-oriented approach that has many dimensions and oppor-
EP

tunities for teaching, research and development. Going to back to the argument by
Knox (2013), a process-oriented approach to open education should ideally involve
“the active engagement of learners in participation and dialogue, as well as further
critical explorations of the relationships between technology and education” (p. 21). 455
PR

Although it is important to note that the way one goes about OEP is heavily
informed by pedagogical skills and values, the academic discipline, and the specific
issue or topic that is explored, as well as by the way openness is understood and
exercised on, a process-oriented approach should always take contextual factors that
shape learning and teaching into consideration. As such, it is important to recognize 460
that embracing openness in educational practices may not necessarily lead to mean-
ingful learning. There is a need to think deeply and critically about the learning
experience and teaching methods used for pedagogical innovations at multiple
levels as Ehlers (2011a) suggested. In addition, as Mays (2017) noted, the learning
ecology – the complex interaction between educational resources, methods of 465
teaching, the institutional culture, available support mechanisms, and so on – no
doubt shapes the process as well as the outcome.
16 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

Practical implications
This study might be helpful for those who wish to have a broad understanding of the
peer-reviewed OEP literature across different disciplines of study, but in particular from 470
an educational perspective. Those who wish to research OEPs might be interested in
exploring understudied areas of OEPs such as cultural and social dimensions of OEPs,
open assessment of learning, open online problem-based learning, and open production
of educational content, as well as ethical issues in designing and disseminating OER
(e.g., the dissemination of indigenous knowledge). 475
Finally, we emphasize the need to build collective knowledge in the efforts towards
opening up education. With the use of OEPs as a common descriptor for diverse open
practices, we can at least establish a shared understanding of where research is at within

N
the field of education and across disciplines and academic communities.

O
Disclosure statement 480

SI
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
R
VE
The research is supported by Anadolu University Scientific Research Projects Commission under
the grant no: [1805E123]; Anadolu Üniversitesi [1705E413].

Note on contributor 485

T

Suzan Koseoglu is an academic developer at Goldsmiths, University of London. Suzan holds an

IN

MEd and a PhD in learning technologies. Her area of expertise is online learning with an emphasis
on open and networked scholarship and socio-cultural aspects of learning in further and higher
education contexts.
R

Aras Bozkurt is a researcher in the Department of Distance Education at Anadolu University, 490
Turkey. He holds MA and PhD degrees in distance education. He conducts studies on online
EP

learning communities and online learning processes.

ORCID
PR

Suzan Koseoglu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8918-2714

Aras Bozkurt http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-642X 495

References
Alevizou, P. (2012). Open to interpretation? Productive frameworks for understanding audience
engagement with OER. In Cambridge 2012: Innovation and Impact – Openly Collaborating to
Enhance Education, a joint meeting of OER12 and OpenCourseWare Consortium Global 2012 (pp.
1–14). Milton Keynes: Open University. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/33452/ 500
Andrade, A., Ehlers, U. D., Caine, A., Carneiro, R., Conole, G., Kairamo, A.-K., & Holmberg, C. (2011).
Beyond OER: Shifting focus to open educational practices [OPAL Report 2011]. Open Education
Quality Initiative. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/content/beyond-oer-shifting-
focus-open-educational-practices
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 17

Atenas, J., & Havemann, L. (2014). Questions of quality in repositories of open educational 505
resources: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 22. doi:10.3402/rlt.v22.20889
Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources (OER)
movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities (Report to The William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation). Retrieved from https://www.hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/
ReviewoftheOERMovement.pdf 510
Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2012). Open practices: Briefing paper. Bristol:
JISC. Retrieved from https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58444186/Open%20Practices%
20briefing%20paper.pd
Bossu, C., Brown, M., & Bull, D. (2014). Adoption, use and management of open educational resources
to enhance teaching and learning in Australia [Report]. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate. 515
net/publication/274387571_Adoption_use_and_management_of_Open_Educational_
Resources_to_enhance_teaching_and_learning_in_Australia

N
Bossu, C., & Stagg, A. (2018). The potential role of open educational practice policy in transforming
Australian higher education. Open Praxis, 10(2), 145–157.
Camilleri, A. F., & Ehlers, U.-D. (2011). Mainstreaming open educational practice: Recommendations 520

O
for policy (Report). Brussels: OPAL Consortium, European Foundation for Quality in e-Learning.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260423291_Mainstreaming_Open_

SI
Educational_Practice
Cape Town Open Education Declaration. (2007). Cape Town open education declaration:
Unlocking the promise of open educational resources. Retrieved from http://www.capetownde 525

R
claration.org/read-the-declaration
Challinor, J., Marín, V. I., & Tur, G. (2017). The development of the reflective practitioner through
VE
digital storytelling. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 9(2–3), 186–203.
Chiappe, A., & Lee, L. L. (2017). Open teaching: A new way on e-learning? Electronic Journal of
e-Learning, 15(5), 369–383. Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/ 530
Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010, August). Through the open door: Open courses as research,
learning, and engagement. EDUCAUSE Review, 45(4), 30–32. Retrieved from https://er.educause.
T

edu/articles/2010/8/through-the-open-door-open-courses-as-research-learning-and-
engagement
IN

Crofts, K., & Bisman, J. (2010). Interrogating accountability: An illustration of the use of Leximancer 535
software for qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 7(2),
180–207.
R

Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher
education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), Retrieved
540
EP

from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index
Cronin, C., & MacLaren, I. (2018). Conceptualising OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical
literature in open educational practices. Open Praxis, 10(2), 127–143.
Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., Glover, M., & Walji, S. (2017). MOOC—Making and open educational
PR

practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 81–97.

Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of 545
Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 29–44. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/journal/
1552-2237_Interdisciplinary_Journal_of_E-Learning_and_Learning_
Ehlers, U.-D. (2011a). Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open educa-
tional practices. Journal of Open Flexible and Distance Learning, 15(2), 1–10. Retrieved from
http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/index 550
Ehlers, U.-D. (2011b). From open educational resources to open educational practices. Elearning
Papers, 23, pp. 1–8. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ1079969)
Foster, R. L. (1997). Addressing epistemologic and practical issues in multimethod research: A
procedure for conceptual triangulation. Advances in Nursing Science, 20(2), 1–12. Retrieved from
https://journals.lww.com/advancesinnursingscience/pages/default.aspx 555
Funk, J., Guthadjaka, K., & Kong, G. (2015). Posting traditional ecological knowledge on open
access biodiversity platforms: Implications for learning design. The Australian Journal of
Indigenous Education, 44(2), 150–162.
18 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

Gallardo, M., Heiser, S., & Arias McLaughlin, X. (2017). Developing pedagogical expertise in modern
language learning and specific learning difficulties through collaborative and open educational 560
practices. The Language Learning Journal, 45(4), 518–529.
Geser, G., Ed. (2007). Open educational practices and resources: OLCOS roadmap 2012. Salzburg,
Austria: Salzburg Research & EduMedia Group. Retrieved from http://www.olcos.org/cms/
upload/docs/olcos_roadmap.pdf
Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 565
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage.
Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2010). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL:
Insights from a connected world. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.
Harel, D., & Koren, Y. (2000). A fast multi-scale method for drawing large graphs. In Proceedings of
the 8th International Symposium on Graph Drawing (pp. 183–196). London: Springer-Verlag. 570
Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=729397

N
Havemann, L. (2016). Open educational resources. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational
philosophy and theory. Singapore: Springer.
Hearst, M. (2003). What is text mining? Retrieved from http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hearst/

O
text-mining.html 575
Hodgkinson-Williams, C. (2014). Degrees of ease: Adoption of OER, open textbooks and MOOCs in

SI
the Global South. In Proceedings of the 2nd Regional Symposium on Open Educational Resources:
Beyond Advocacy, Research and Policy. Retrieved from https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/1188
Hodgkinson-Williams, C., & Gray, E. (2009). Degrees of openness: The emergence of OER at the

R
University of Cape Town. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information 580
and Communication Technology, 5(5), 101–116. Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/index.
VE
php
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Kaatrakoski, H., Littlejohn, A., & Hood, N. (2017). Learning challenges in higher education: An 585
analysis of contradictions within open educational practice. Higher Education, 74, 599–615.
T

Karunanayaka, S., Naidu, S., Rajendra, J., & Ariadurai, S. (2018). Designing continuing professional
development MOOCs to promote the adoption of OER and OEP. Open Praxis, 10(2), 179–190.
IN

Karunanayaka, S., Naidu, S., Rajendra, J., & Ratnayake, H. (2015). From OER to OEP: Shifting
practitioner perspectives and practices with innovative learning experience design. Open 590
Praxis, 7(4), 339–350.
R

Knox, J. (2013). The limitations of access alone: Moving towards open processes in education
technology. Open Praxis, 5(1), 21–29.
EP

Laverde, A. C., & Arias, M. H. (2015). Open production of an educational digital content: A case
study. Opción, 31, 312–327. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/html/310/31045569020/ 595
Mays, T. (2017). Mainstreaming use of open educational resources (OER) in an African context.
Open Praxis, 9(4), 387–401.
PR

Mishra, S. (2017). Open educational resources: Removing barriers from within. Distance Education,
38, 369–380.
Naidu, S. (2016). The case for open educational practice. Distance Education, 37, 1–3. 600
Nerantzi, C., & Gossman, P. (2015). Towards collaboration as learning: Evaluation of an open CPD
opportunity for HE teachers. Research in Learning Technology, 23. doi:10.3402/rlt.v23.26967
Newman, M. E. (2005). A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social
Networks, 27(1), 39–54.
Peters, O. (2008). Transformation through open universities. In T. Evans, M. Haughey, & D. Murphy 605
(Eds.), International handbook of distance education (pp. 279–298). Bingley: Emerald.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Smith, A. E., & Humphreys, M. S. (2006). Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural
language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 262–279.
Stylianakis, G., Moumoutzis, N., Arapi, P., Mylonakis, M., & Christodoulakis, S. (2014). COLearn and 610
open discovery space portal alignment: A case of enriching open learning Infrastructures with
collaborative learning capabilities. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 19

Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL) (pp. 252–256). New York, NY:
IEEE. doi:10.1109/IMCTL.2014.7011142
Walz, A., & Bekbalaeva, J. (2018). Assessing the potential toward open educational practices in 615
Kyrgyzstan. Open Praxis, 10(2), 159–177.
Weller, M., Jordan, K., DeVries, I., & Rolfe, V. (2018). Mapping the open education landscape:
Citation network analysis of historical open and distance education research. Open Praxis, 10
(2), 109–126.

Appendix 620

Table A1. The research methods used in sampled publications.

N
O
SI
R
VE
T
IN
R
EP
PR
20 S. KOSEOGLU AND A. BOZKURT

Table A2. The list of keywords used in sampled publications and their frequency of use.

N
O
SI
R
VE
T
IN
R
EP
PR
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 21

Table A3. BC metrics of top 20 keywords in sampled publications.

N
O
SI
R
VE
T
IN
R
EP
PR